Pros and cons of Quad Remesher (Converting to all quads from Plasicity)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- In this video, I cover some tricks when using Quad Remesher to convert meshes imported from Plasicity to Blender, as well as some limitations and issues.
Quad Remesher video: • How to model lighting ...
Software used: Blender
Sci-fi grenade tutorial: • How to make a Sci-Fi G...
I've found that exporting as step...then importing to Unreal engine using the Unreal Datasmith plugin (default settings)...then exporting it out as an FBX (default settings) into Blender. You get very good results with great edge flow. I then use a cheap addon called Instant Clean to tidy up some more before I start using Quad Remesher. This also makes it easier to assign materials to further define sharper edge flow for the Remesher.
That's fascinating. I'll have to look into these options! Thanks for the tip.
For this reason I prefer to take the models to ZBrush to use ZRemesher with Polygroups by normals
Yeah supposedly Quad Remesher is made by the same guy as the ZRemesher (exoside.com/company/about/), but I'm not yet able to get the normals option to behave the way I want.
@@ReboundAnimation Exactly, if there was an option in Blender to create face sets from hard edges and these would allow you to define what you want to keep when doing the QuadRemesher, it would be incredible.
Yeah but you lose the creasing don't you? I've not had great results that way yet.
@@peko1967 Yes, that's why I don't do the creasing in Blender, I take it directly to Zbrush and do it there.
Yes Quad remesher is just that, imperfect. Sometimes not being 100 percent perfect means not really being useful.
I don't doubt that it is wonderful for retopologize organic models.
So this addon should improve a lot if it wants what almost everyone says about it to be true, which is that it works great.
It depends.
It depends is often a big pain in the ass.
For example with medium complex hardsurface models like the ones above.
Or for curved surfaces mixed with hard edges.
Sometimes it is so frustrating that I prefer retopo by hand.
Also, the user interface should be made further clear and simple..
Also sometimes it is a stroke of luck to guess the right number of polygons.
It is obvious that the ultimate goal of this program is to be able to return perfect meshes in any case. It is too important to have such an algorithm, it would allow you to bypass the correct topology. And sooner or later it will happen, either directly or with tricks of various kinds.
Also because it is integrated into the major professional 3D software out there and they will press for a better product.
Yeah, every tools has it's limits.
Honestly, while I do hope to use this tool in production, the main reasons I would choose not to is because an "all-quads" mesh is not always needed.
What's interesting is that the Quad Remesher may work better with boolean made meshes in Blender than Plasicity imports based on some videos I've seen. I still need to check this out.
@@ReboundAnimation It's a pretty gigantic limit to have little control over what edges should guide the quads. There's really nothing that can be done about that, the algorithm used is too "dumb" to be able to fix it.
The tool looks good for youtube videos and snippets, but there's no real use for it, your meshes need absurd res to get appropriate curves, and at that point, all the other alternatives already do the work just fine. It's just not good enough for any serious production.
It's definitely better for soft edges meshes than hard surfaces for sure.
That said, for certain kinds of hard surfaces, I doubt manual work would beat the raw speed, as it takes a few seconds.
I suspect it's better for the overall shape, rather than complex surfaces.
Supposedly there is a way to control the edge flow more. Still experimenting with that.
@@johncallof8839 Absolutely agree.
Have you tried using the "Use Materials" option instead. Assigning different materials to parts where you want edge flow to change etc.
A bit yes. I have a video on it here: ruclips.net/video/Pr7eZC9VlzY/видео.html
I've still not mastered it for Plasticity models, but given how it works I think there should be a way to do so with some planning.
If anything, I feel like this just as much a damnation of Plasticity (and modelers like it) as it is Quad Remesher. Unfortunately all the freedom you get in a non-polygonal modeler like Plasticity means you really can't use it for video game assets, so it's just for people making fancy rendered stills.
Best to just do it all polygonal to begin with if you want to actually USE your model. I model just in Blender using some Kushiro tools like Grid Modeler and a few others.
Maybe, but I think their may be a way to get the remesher to "behave" :) ruclips.net/video/Pr7eZC9VlzY/видео.html
That said, the exported models can still be used in game or film contexts. They just don't have the preferred edge flow and can't use subD, but the poly count can be reduced in comparison. (The examples in Grid Modeler are also using n-gons: ruclips.net/video/7uHMBhiMjww/видео.html)
does it do the same on the second model if you use vertex colour option
I'm not sure yet. I've tried the material option (ruclips.net/video/Pr7eZC9VlzY/видео.html), but still need to try some things out.
Considering that QR costs as much as Plasticity - no thanks.
Understandable. I'm guessing you prefer Plasticity?
I'm hoping to master using them both together, but haven't quite got it yet. Here I was able to at least get Blender Booleans working with Quad Remesher: ruclips.net/video/Pr7eZC9VlzY/видео.html
@@ReboundAnimation I have tried Quad Remesher and it is not bad but too expensive and far from the perfect solution for quad topology, which itself is a bit overrated for hard surface modelling. Unless you want to create 'bendable' models for animation or something like that. Plasticity on the other hand is a very powerful CAD modeler, very intuitive (esp for blender users) and will only grow stronger - I am planning to buy it when the trial runs out.
@@nikolaikrustev1159 For sure. Like you said, I think it's optimal for deforming the mesh, but is often overkill for other hard surface cases.